Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Patidar vs Smt.Alka Upadhyay on 20 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH xx
CONC Nos. 650, 653, 654,661,662, 695, 696 & 850 of 2016
Indore dated : 20/02/2018
Shri Shashank Patwari alongwith Shri Rishab Sethi,
learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sunil Jail, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S.
Joshi learned counsel for the respondents.
By the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04/10/2017 passed the following order, which reads as under:-
"The present contempt petition is filed alleging non compliance of the order passed in the writ petition and order dated 12.12.2015, passed in CONC.No.310/2015 by National Lok Adalat of this Court.
Respondent No.3 filed the return along with copy of order dated 04.07.2017 by which the representation of the petitioner for grant of regular pay scale has been rejected in light of the policy dated 07.10.2016 issued by the GAD. In para 4 of the order dated 04.07.2017, it is mentioned that against the order dated 12.12.2015 passed in Contempt Petition No.310/2015, SLP has been dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2016 by the Supreme Court. It is further mentioned that against the said dismissal of the SLP, a review petition has been filed which is pending but there is no material on record to establish that any such review petition was filed or is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Shri A.K. Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits at bar that no such review petition has been or pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
On one hand the Government is of the opinion that order dated 12.12.2015 is required to be complied in which the National Lok Adalat of this Court has given a direction to grant the benefit of regular pay scale within three months. Para 9 is reproduced below:
"9. In this view of the matter, in the present case also, the respondents are directed to recall the earlier order of rejection pertaining to the petitioner and directed to grant pay fixation for grant of regular pay-scale, as directed in the writ petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and failure to comply with the same within the stipulated time, the respondents/contemnors shall be proceeded in contempt for flagrant, disobedience and violation of the order."
Against the said order, SLP has been rejected by the apex Court, therefore, the said order has attained finality. After the order dated 12.12.2015, passed in Lok Adalat, the GAD of State Government has framed the policy dated 07.10.2016. In Para 3 of the said policy, the Government has protected the order passed in case of daily rated employees in whose favour the High Court has passed the order of regularization or payment of regular pay. Para 3 is reproduced below:
"3- eku- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa ftu nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dks dfri; foHkkxksa }kjk vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;s gSa] mUgsa iwoZor j[kk tk,A ftu nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa }kjk eku- mPp U;k;ky; esa izdj.k nk;j fd;s x;s gSa mu nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa }kjk lacaf/kr U;k;ky;hu izdj.k okfil fy;s tkus ij izLrkfor ;kstuk dk ykHk fn;k tk,A"
But in the present case, the order has already been passed in favour of petitioner by this Court and therefore, they are outside the purview of this policy because rights have been created in their favour.
The respondent No.3 has rejected the representation of the petitioner on the basis of the policy dated 07.10.2016 and on the instructions of the higher authorities. It means that respondent No.3 is giving preference to the Policy dated 07.10.2016 over and above the orders of this Court passed in the National Lok Adalat.
Issue notice to the present Principal Secretary, Tribal Development as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him/her for non-compliance of the order dated 12.12.2015.
The petitioner is directed to implead present Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department as respondent No.4 in this petition.
After amendment in this petition, notices be issued to the Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department along with copy of this order. PF be paid within seven days, returnable within four weeks."
Thereafter, an affidavit of Shri S.N. Misra, Principal Secretary of the respondents department has been filed. In the aforesaid affidavit respondents are taking the shelter of decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray & Ors. decided on 15/12/2016.
In the case in hand, SLP preferred against order passed in the Court/ National Lok Adalat has been rejected. After order dated 12/12/2015 passed by this Court in National Lok Adalat, G.A.D., framed a new policy dated 07/10/2016, therefore, this Court rejected the contention of the respondents holding that any Policy will not give preference over and above the orders of this Court passed in National Lok Adalat.
At this stage Shri Sunil Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents made a statement at bar that the respondents are ready to pay regular scale to the petitioners but this order will not cited as a precedent in other cases.
I accept the aforesaid statement of the learned Senior Counsel and respondents are granted three months time to pay the regular scale to the petitioners and submit its compliance report before the Principal Registrar of this Court alongwith detailed affidavit of the Principal Secretary.
With the aforesaid, CONC Nos. 650, 653, 654,661,662, 695, 696 & 850 of 2016 stands disposed of .
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal)
skt Judge
Santosh Kumar Tiwari
2018.02.23 03:59:41
+05'30'